From: Adam Quiggle (aquiggle@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Feb 10 2002 - 19:30:56 GMT-3
Yuenme,
Yes the network between R1-R2 is 150.200.x.x. I've been working so hard
on redistribution between VLSM/FLSM on the same major network that it
almost seemed too simple. :-)
Thanks for the validation.
AQ
At 04:35 PM 2/10/02, yuen me wrote:
>Yes. It seems to be correct. but first of all, I want to confirm that the
>network between R1-R2 is 150.200.0.0. Then the theory is that since most
>of the variable subnetted OSPF route belongs to other major network:
>172.168, 150.100, etc. They show following the rule of classful routing
>that major networks should be sent to the peer, which is R1.
>
>You will start to see the blocking effect of variable subnetted route if
>you put everything into 150.200 with variable subnets, unless you
>summarized them.
>
>yuenme
>
>
>>From: Adam Quiggle <aquiggle@nc.rr.com>
>>Reply-To: Adam Quiggle <aquiggle@nc.rr.com>
>>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>Subject: Bootcamp Lab 9, VLSM->FLSM
>>Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 01:37:03 -0500
>>
>>Hi Gang,
>>
>>Running through Lab 9 and think I am finally coming to the realization
>>about VLSM->FLSM on different classfull networks. Previously I had
>>thought that any route that is injected into a FLSM that the VLSM route
>>had to be summarized to the classfull network boundary before it would
>>get advertised into the FLSM. For example:
>>
>>Simple Scenario:
>>
>>R1(s1)---IGRP----(S0.2)R2(S0.1)----OSPF DOMAIN
>>
>>Objective: Redistribute OSPF into IGRP.
>>
>>OSPF Routes on R2:
>>R2#show ip route
>>Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
>> D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
>> N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
>> E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E - EGP
>> i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, ia - IS-IS inter
>>area
>> * - candidate default, U - per-user static route, o - ODR
>> P - periodic downloaded static route
>>
>>Gateway of last resort is not set
>>
>> 137.20.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
>>C 137.20.20.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0
>> 172.168.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks
>>O IA 172.168.10.0/24 [110/65] via 150.100.32.10, 00:11:27, Serial0.1
>>O IA 172.168.64.0/18 [110/138] via 150.100.32.10, 00:11:27, Serial0.1
>> 150.100.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 3 subnets, 2 masks
>>C 150.100.32.0/19 is directly connected, Serial0.1
>>O 150.100.32.4/32 [110/128] via 150.100.32.10, 00:11:27, Serial0.1
>>O 150.100.32.10/32 [110/64] via 150.100.32.10, 00:11:28, Serial0.1
>> 150.200.0.0/20 is subnetted, 1 subnets
>>C 150.200.16.0 is directly connected, Serial0.2
>>I 150.150.0.0/16 [100/8976] via 150.200.16.1, 00:00:40, Serial0.2
>>
>>NOTICE: 172.168.0.0/16 is variably subnetted with no summarization
>>being performed anywhere.
>>
>>R2 Config:
>>router ospf 10
>> router-id 2.2.2.2
>> log-adjacency-changes
>> redistribute igrp 10 metric 100 metric-type 1 subnets tag 1
>> network 137.20.20.0 0.0.0.255 area 2
>> network 150.100.32.0 0.0.31.255 area 0
>>!
>>router igrp 10
>> redistribute ospf 10
>> passive-interface Ethernet0
>> passive-interface Serial0.1
>> network 150.200.0.0
>> default-metric 1500 100 255 1 1500
>>
>>
>>On R1 I see the networks on a classfull boundary without any
>>summarization at all.
>>
>>R1#show ip route igrp
>>Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
>> D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
>> N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
>> E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E - EGP
>> i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, ia - IS-IS inter
>>area
>> * - candidate default, U - per-user static route, o - ODR
>> P - periodic downloaded static route
>>
>>Gateway of last resort is not set
>>
>>I 137.20.0.0/16 [100/8576] via 150.200.16.2, 00:01:11, Serial1
>>I 172.168.0.0/16 [100/8766] via 150.200.16.2, 00:01:11, Serial1
>>I 150.100.0.0/16 [100/10476] via 150.200.16.2, 00:01:11, Serial1
>>
>>
>>It never dawned on me that when dealing with different classfull
>>networks you don't have to worry about getting the subnet mask correct
>>to get your route injected into a FLSM network.
>>
>>My question: Is this the correct behavior?
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>AQ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:18 GMT-3